[Sov][1v1] Lend Lease: Exploitation of tech free tanks
Posts: 1248
Posts: 509
Posts: 509
I think it's fine.
If he foregoes teching, he gains minimal advantage. Sure, he saves a bit of manpower but he doesn't get the m4c sherman any quicker and he has much less tactical options available to him. Build a pair of stug's or a jagdpanzer or two and suddenly his epic strategy falls flat on its face with no back up plan.
(emphasis mine)
Lets see. He saves 160 + 240 + 240 = 765 mp (cost of tech buildings).
I have to spend, for teching, (T2 + BP2 + T3) = 575 mp. [Not counting T1 & BP1 as ill need them against his conspam anyway.]
End result: he gets, essentially, a 575+765 = 1340 mp resource advantage in terms of manpower. Spread it out over a 20 minute game, it becomes 67mp per minute. Which, I believe, is similar to the Soviet Industry penalty, only this is a bonus. I mention soviet industry here because we all know how crippling that mp penalty is, now just imagine a 70mp bonus to your income instead. (In my case it was ~50 cause the match was 27 minutes but still!)
If you can call that 'a bit' and a minimal advantage, well that's your standard of 'a bit' & minimal advantages sir. Not mine. Nor the majority of the community I'd wager.
The whole bloody point is that he used his superior numbers to attrit me into not having enough fuel for a StuG by continually pushing me off my territory. He was able to do so by being able to pump in fresh conscript squads even after his initial ones (and mine) had taken damage. Because of his advantage in manpower
And that he could do so risk free because of the M4C tanks not being tied to tech. If I knew that he won't get those M4Cs before teching, then I could have pumped out extra infantry to counter the spam. However, since I knew he'd get those M4Cs out tech-free eventually, I had to spend extra mp on teching up to T2 and then T3 just 'in case'. (Proof by contradiction).
Posts: 110
End result: he gets, essentially, a 575+765 = 1340 mp resource advantage in terms of manpower.
Why are you adding these 2 numbers?
Posts: 509
Why are you adding these 2 numbers?
because both factions are expected to spend over the course of a game. if he doesnt hes saved some mp (he gains some). at the same time since i have to spend I lose that amount. the net difference is the sum of the two.
Posts: 378
because both factions are expected to spend over the course of a game. if he doesnt hes saved some mp (he gains some). at the same time since i have to spend I lose that amount. the net difference is the sum of the two.
Sry, Junaid, I have watched the replay and I must say: he won fair and square.
While both of you made some mistakes, you lost map control to him 50 to 500. At that time, he's already floated 500 fuel reserving for M4C.
Meanwhile, you didn't have even a single Pak on the field. You could not hit T3 because you lose the map control to him while purchasing Halftrack and 222. You couldn't call the Tiger to counter because your fuel does not even reach 200. (Although you choose another doc).
Remember that he had to tech for Molotov and AT grenade as well to hold your force back. His halftrack+guard cost fuel also.
Tl;dr
Try to be better instead of accusing the game for making you lose.
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
Posts: 1384
(emphasis mine)
Lets see. He saves 160 + 240 + 240 = 765 mp (cost of tech buildings).
I have to spend, for teching, (T2 + BP2 + T3) = 575 mp. [Not counting T1 & BP1 as ill need them against his conspam anyway.]
End result: he gets, essentially, a 575+765 = 1340 mp resource advantage in terms of manpower.
So what is he doing with that manpower that he "saved", since he can't build any units because he has no tech? Conscripts and Combat Engies?
Posts: 150
If you lose to m4c sherman spam, then you obviously didn't play your cards right.
Posts: 509
So what is he doing with that manpower that he "saved", since he can't build any units because he has no tech? Conscripts and Combat Engies?
spamming scripts. Which gave him the early game advantage. Through attrition
Posts: 509
lend lease shermans already get their cost penalised for their call-in status. Currently, they take 135 fuel to call-in at 10 cps, but take only 2 volleys from double pak guns to kill.
If you lose to m4c sherman spam, then you obviously didn't play your cards right.
It wasnt the sherman spam which got me. Tbh he did not spam shermans.
It was the con spam. Which I couldn't counter by building more infantry because I knew I had to tech and that he did not
Posts: 509
Sry, Junaid, I have watched the replay and I must say: he won fair and square.
While both of you made some mistakes, you lost map control to him 50 to 500. At that time, he's already floated 500 fuel reserving for M4C.
Meanwhile, you didn't have even a single Pak on the field. You could not hit T3 because you lose the map control to him while purchasing Halftrack and 222. You couldn't call the Tiger to counter because your fuel does not even reach 200. (Although you choose another doc).
Remember that he had to tech for Molotov and AT grenade as well to hold your force back. His halftrack+guard cost fuel also.
Tl;dr
Try to be better instead of accusing the game for making you lose.
I thank you for your advice and I will try to play better from now on. I always am trying. And yes, I do realize now, in hindsight, that an mg bunker would have stopped him cold. And yes, another of my mistakes was that I did not see his strat for what it was early enough. I didn't realize that he was only spamming scripts and had not/was not going to tech at all. And that early sniper was a mistake.
However, I think you missed one of my crucial points. He did not defeat me due to sherman spam. Not at all. I never complained about fuel mismatches.
Yes he had me beat by the midgame by a 450 vp advantage. My point was that he could do it because he could safely spend (almost) all of his his mp toward combat infantry up to that point. As he had no teching to do.
I, otoh, could not.
Its the same advantage that mechanized assault gives, and in my opinion its an imbalance. Both this doc, and mech assault.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
spamming scripts. Which gave him the early game advantage. Through attrition
If he heavily invested in early game and you didn't, then I don't really know what did you expected.
You won't win if you have 2-3 squads of infantry less, unless you can hold your ground really well.
Posts: 509
If he heavily invested in early game and you didn't, then I don't really know what did you expected.
You won't win if you have 2-3 squads of infantry less, unless you can hold your ground really well.
Well ofcourse I can't win outnumbered. I hope you read everything else which I also typed:
Namely: that I could not afford to keep spending on T1 units because I had to tech. Its ostheer's main flaw imo, you simply need that 222/Pak asap otherwise you leave yourself open.
Because I didn't know when the M5 etc would come out and couldn't let my guard down. Yes there were some simple strategies which I could have used e.g. mg bunker; but my second mistake was in not anticipating his playstyle. This is the second time I played against pure script spam in 1v1 (which I'm relatively new to) so it was unexpected and I did not adapt in time.
My point is that without LL, or say, mechanized assault, (if I was allied, he axis) that he couldn't have kept it up. The doctrines enable this.
And there is the other fact that t85s, easy8s etc were all restricted to tech. For the same reasons as outlined above (allowed tech skipping).
Why the exception for LL and mech assault
Posts: 509
Posts: 509
has OP encountered cpt.molo?
No I haven't. I gather, he pioneered and perfected this kind of play?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Well ofcourse I can't win outnumbered. I hope you read everything else which I also typed:
I did, but it doesn't put you in better light in any way.
Namely: that I could not afford to keep spending on T1 units because I had to tech. Its ostheer's main flaw imo, you simply need that 222/Pak asap otherwise you leave yourself open.
So you need early AT gun and light AT vehice vs no tech conspam why?
Because I didn't know when the M5 etc would come out and couldn't let my guard down. Yes there were some simple strategies which I could have used e.g. mg bunker; but my second mistake was in not anticipating his playstyle. This is the second time I played against pure script spam in 1v1 (which I'm relatively new to) so it was unexpected and I did not adapt in time.
That is another huge error you've made, not being able to identify opponents intentions and strat based on his loadout of commanders, bulletins and his early game choices puts you in equally disadvantaged situation as not having a pair of AT guns after 10th minute of the game. Glad you can see that yourself.
My point is that without LL, or say, mechanized assault, (if I was allied, he axis) that he couldn't have kept it up. The doctrines enable this.
Yes, that is how the doctrines are designed and intended to work.
They aren't unbeatable, lend-lease isn't even optimal doctrine and you're crippling yourself for ignoring teching with it as it can be easily anticipated and hardcountered.
And there is the other fact that t85s, easy8s etc were all restricted to tech. For the same reasons as outlined above (allowed tech skipping).
Both T34/85 and EZ8 are considerably better then their stock equivalents in both, firepower and durability.
M4C is better then T34/76, but then what isn't? Its the tier of call-in StuG, M10, dozer or command tanks, its not nearly as powerful or potent as 34/85 or EZ8, hence its not restricted.
Why the exception for LL and mech assault
Because, again, these doctrines are designed to be call-in doctrines. You're still hindering yourself if you won't tech using them, unless your opponent lost early game, which doesn't really impact late game in any way in this case, he'd picked no doctrine at all and rushed to T4 for T34 spam, you'd lost in exactly the same way, only difference being, with how much behind you were, you'd see armor on field much sooner then call-ins.
You didn't lost because of call-in doctrines, you lost because you were outplayed greatly in early game because you didn't read your opponents intentions and didn't reacted at all to his strat, call-ins had nothing to do with it.
In fact, had he teched instead, you'd be base pinned quickly by fast M5 which arrives incomparably faster then the call-in.
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
I had troubles against it with T1 opening (zero AT, just the same as conspam) even while going Tank Hunter to compensate. He was able to kite me, repair, kite again etc. I had terrible MP bleed until T-70 have arrived. In his case T-70 won't be there.
Oh, and watch out for mines. Don't be greedy.
Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4
Permanently BannedLivestreams
173 | |||||
5 | |||||
4 | |||||
3 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.272108.716+23
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, sunwingamescom1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM